I do this to plan for just that event if I want to upgrade the wiring without having to bust walls out. Currently, I installed CAT6 in everything. However, I would be more than happy to simply pull the "old" CAT6 out and replace it with Thunderbolt cabling!

Why replace, just add the TB cable? You need to keep the Cat6 for Windows or Linux machines.

Will I be able to plug in a hub? If displays can only be last in the chain, it would be awkward trying to connect something in between that does not need to be connected all the time. If there was a hub you could plug the screen in one port, and other devices in another.

Far superior to USB1/2. Given a choice in I/O I always go with IEEE1394.

Me too, Firewire is far better than USB 2.

Specs sometimes lie. Even though USB 2.0 is supposed to be rated at 480 and the original Firewire is rated at a lower 400, the Firewire beats the USB 2.0 in real life usage, such as when using external drives. Firewire (400) has better sustained throughput and is faster than USB 2.0.

Amazing that some posters think this is bad news for Apple! Oh, that's right; we get lots of PC fanatics that post here....

\

Indeed, that's the only explanation. To anyone who actually has their head on straight, it's clear that this is a big, big win for Apple. Between this and the upcoming new Final Cut, it's clear they are targeting their core video graphics market. (Which is a statement no one's made about Apple in a while, so it's nice to see them revisit their roots.) They'll be the only vendor offering this kind of throughput for a whole year.

As far as "USB catching up", as one clown suggested, take a look at Apple's comparison speed graph. USB isn't even CLOSE, and won't be any time soon. (Certainly not for the next year!)

And re questions about "where's the fiber", that technology is simply not yet ready, but it is in the pipeline.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sevenfeet

According to the CNET article, it's not that Apple has an exclusive. Intel just thinks that PC manufacturers will probably wait until their next design cycles to implement.

Right, Intel's not doing this out of the goodness of their little corporate hearts. They figure Apple would be first to adopt the new technology anyway, and thus create a demand. (And Apple's video editor users are the ones who need this stuff the most.) The PC industry will eventually copy Apple, as TB becomes 'standard' equipment, like USB, and PC buyers expect it.

It's also remotely possible that Intel couldn't roll out the chipsets acorss the entire PC industry all at once anyway. (Though I don't know this for a fact.)

Specs sometimes lie. Even though USB 2.0 is supposed to be rated at 480 and the original Firewire is rated at a lower 400, the Firewire beats the USB 2.0 in real life usage, such as when using external drives. Firewire (400) has better sustained throughput and is faster than USB 2.0.

Indeed. USB 2 is burst (whatever that means. I've never had anywhere near it with USB) to 480Mbps. FireWire 400 is sustained 400Mbps, with 800 following suit.

Across computers with the same USB-SD adapter and SDHC card, I've had anywhere from 4Kbps to 4Mbps. It just depends on which computer.

And device makers have every right to say no thank you to thunderbolt until it isn't exclusive or to sell them at a much higher price tag. Limiting this to Apple hurts its chances at adoption.

That's fine by me. With LaCie and WD already onboard, Caldigit and G-Technology probably aren't far behind. Why didn't others invest in Thunderbolt? Apple did, so Apple gets it first, others can take a number and have a seat until next spring.

And device makers have every right to say no thank you to thunderbolt until it isn't exclusive or to sell them at a much higher price tag. Limiting this to Apple hurts its chances at adoption.

This is not limited to apple. Apple has a HEAD start because it helped develop the tech but its not limited to apple. I am thinking Intel Just now released the tech out into the wild today.

That is why apple will have it a year before everybody else because other companies can just get it starting today so it will probably take a year for other companies to get it into products.

question is it possible for say ati to use thunderbolt as the outputs on a video card? replace the dvi and displayports with the minidisplayport thunderbolt connectors and have the thunderbolt processor onboard the graphicscard? This way combining thunderbolt with a gpu so that you can have full thunderbolt speed if you have one pcie x16 slot?

Yes, I'm sure you want thuderbolt with it's wonderful 10s of meter's length vs. the current 100 meters limit of ethernet, on copper.

Underwhelmed. The home PC is dead. No one even needs USB3.0 either. The current trend is smaller and non expandable computers.

Oh, it's for professionals? How many of them are there?

This allows one port for EVERYTHING. Devices connected to it look to the pc as if they are connected to pcie or as a display port. You can plug in a usb device to it with the right cord even an ethernet adapter.

Not sure why "Apple fanatics" shouldn't be mourning Firewire's demise. Far superior to USB1/2. Given a choice in I/O I always go with IEEE1394.

And it failed because it didn't manage to spread through the rest of the market - non-Apple part.

I don't know if and how much better this Thunderbolt is compared to USB3... but it is missing one thing USB has, and that is backward compatibility with USB2. Moving to USB3 is no brainer for manufacturers - everything will work.

This is so dumb. It slows down the peripheral manufacturers who will have fewer customers to sell to at first, and gets too many people locked into USB 3. Hopefully Apple will at least partially make amends by using the connector on the iPhone and iPad. That will create some more customers.

Hmm this is going to be interesting. So far I've been seeing USB 3.0 peripherals like external HD starting to trickle in computer hardware stores. I wonder who long will it take till TB to get adopted by peripheral manufactures. This is going to be quite a race.

Noone gives a shit if its exclusive if there are no, or hardly any compatible peripherals. It needs to be adopted NOW- in a year, USB 3.0 will probably have a massive headstart over this, as its incorporated into most windows machines. How utterly idiotic. Intel could have secured this as the future standard by incorporating it on all/most of its chipsets. Who's gonna incorporate compatibility for this in their peripherals when theres such a tiny percentile of potential users?

I suspect that the confusion is simply another case of AI bungling the facts.

The statement is "PC makers are expected to begin adding Thunderbolt to their machines next spring"

Hmmm... it's still winter here, so next spring is only a month away. None of the other sites say that it will be a year before anyone else has it.

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"Gatorguy 5/31/13

As has been reported previously (in a lot of tech sites) fiber optic use (for the time being) is not cost effective .... thus the initial roll out being copper ..... not that you won't find something wrong with this strategy. ....

Me? I love everything. Why would you assume there was a complaint embedded in that comment?

Noone gives a shit if its exclusive if there are no, or hardly any compatible peripherals. It needs to be adopted NOW- in a year, USB 3.0 will probably have a massive headstart over this, as its incorporated into most windows machines. How utterly idiotic. Intel could have secured this as the future standard by incorporating it on all/most of its chipsets. Who's gonna incorporate compatibility for this in their peripherals when theres such a tiny percentile of potential users?

I think they'll start adding Thunderbolt to all of their products, which would ensure wide adoption. Think about it. iPhone 4, next iPods, all computers going forward, iPads. Come on!

I think that, at the Mar 2 iPad 2 event, we'll see the iPad being demoed:

-- with an iPad app as a visual control surface for an app running on a Mac
-- with an iPad app as a graphics tablet input device for an app running on a Mac
-- dragging and dropping content between between the iPad and a Mac (both ways)
-- as an external display for an app running on the Mac (the iPad is a peripheral display)
-- as a source of information displayed on the Mac (the Mac is the peripheral)

I suspect that:

-- every Mac and iDevice will include Thunderbolt support in the next upgrade.
-- the next release Pro apps will include support for the iPad as above.
-- iLife and iWork will have full iPod/Mac implementations
-- and iLife and iWork can act as stand-alones or as described above.

The dividing line between desktop and mobile blurs -- depending on how the devices are used.

Atrix, had the right idea -- they just didn't think it through properly (who wants a "Scarecrow/Tin Man" computer?}

"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -

The beauty of LightPeak is that it has Millions of PCs to make it cheap! And where Intel can make its mark is in Fiber optics national grids where boosters are needed every 20 odd miles or so. But have low volume productions (expensive -$15000 in early days)

I think that, at the Mar 2 iPad 2 event, we'll see the iPad being demoed:

-- with an iPad app as a visual control surface for an app running on a Mac
-- with an iPad app as a graphics tablet input device for an app running on a Mac
-- dragging and dropping content between between the iPad and a Mac (both ways)
-- as an external display for an app running on the Mac (the iPad is a peripheral display)
-- as a source of information displayed on the Mac (the Mac is the peripheral)

I suspect that:

-- every Mac and iDevice will include Thunderbolt support in the next upgrade.
-- the next release Pro apps will include support for the iPad as above.
-- iLife and iWork will have full iPod/Mac implementations
-- and iLife and iWork can act as stand-alones or as described above.

Awesome bit of guesswork. I'm in agreement with all of this, especially the iPad control surface integration idea and Thunderbolt on everything.

I am excited, to say the least. The PCI-Express channel should have no problem supplying ethernet/USB/whatever, and the display channel will of course drive a display. Very nice. I can't wait for the docks to start coming out.

Hello? All the major PC manufactures plus many third party device makers already voiced their support. The year isn't a restriction of contract, but a necessity for PC manufacturers to incorporate the new technology. Apple has a head start because it helped develop the technology. Further, like USB, Apple is willing to put a new port on a computer without a developed market yet because Apple is a forward thinker.

What I want to know, does Thunderbolt have the same ability as Firewire to boot a computer from another computer or a third party hard drive (e.g. target disk mode). USB really is a not as practical as Firewire for power users.

Noone gives a shit if its exclusive if there are no, or hardly any compatible peripherals. It needs to be adopted NOW- in a year, USB 3.0 will probably have a massive headstart over this, as its incorporated into most windows machines. How utterly idiotic. Intel could have secured this as the future standard by incorporating it on all/most of its chipsets. Who's gonna incorporate compatibility for this in their peripherals when theres such a tiny percentile of potential users?

I am excited, to say the least. The PCI-Express channel should have no problem supplying ethernet/USB/whatever, and the display channel will of course drive a display. Very nice. I can't wait for the docks to start coming out.

People should be very excited as this tech is certainly not a replacement for USB. I'm not sure many in this thread recognize the incredible gulf between the two standards. TB is clearly a solution for things USB could never do.

As to the other posters I see big confusion with respect to the terms used here. Head start does not imply exclusive.

As to implementation this really has me curious. It appears that TB requires a different support chip. I suspect that this might be why Apple has not been held up by the SATA bug. TB most likely has direct access to the DMI bus or whatever it is called on Sandy Bridge. I need to dig up an architecture diagram ASAP. TB could go very far in other industries like instrumentation.